M/S UNICORN AGRO TECH LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD. vs. THE ASST. COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

7,37,467/-. The assessing officer while completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated December 31, 2007 accepted the long term capital gains

M/S. VJIL CONSULTING LTD., vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,S.CHALAPATHI RAO

capital gains should be included in the profit and loss account for the purpose of computing book profit. 7. The learned Counsel further places reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘C.I.T. Vs. HCL COMNET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LIMITED’ reported in 2008 [305] ITR 409 and the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEE TAX-III vs. M/S.V.B.C.FERRO ALLOYS LTD

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

section 36, IV. Finance Act 1999 introduced the follouing fufther Explanation: " Explanation 2.- For the remoual of doubts, it is herebg declared that ang income bg uag of diuidends, interest or long-term capital gains of an infrastntcture capital fund or an infrastructure capital compang from inuestments made before the 7

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

7. It cannot be disputed that trademarks/brands, copyright and good will constitute assets of the business and are profit earning apparatus. Section 2 (14) of the Act defines “Capital Asset” and Section 2 (11) (b) of the Act defines “intangible asset”. These provisions read as under:- “Section 2 (14): “capital asset” means property of any kind held by an assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri Anand Prakash Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains can be computed under Section 45. Electricity and phone connections were taken by M/s.MAPL with the intention to start business, which was a non starter, and ultimately ended up in rescission of contract. The learned counsel for the assessee points out that there is no recital in the agreement for sale produced at Annexures-A and B regarding

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

gains   tax   or   capital   loss,   the  essential requirements are that there should  be a transfer of a capital asset effected in  the   previous   year.   This   would   require  ascertainment   of   the   meaning   of   the   terms  transfer and capital assets. Transfer has been  defined, in relation to a capital asset, to  include   various   contingencies   stipulated   by  sub­clauses of Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

gains on the sale of land to one of its sister concerns namely M/s.MD Properties Pvt. Ltd., is concerned, relying on Section 50C of the Act providing for adoption of the guideline value as the consideration for transfer of a capital asset, Section 80IA(8) requiring adoption of market value of goods in place of the actual - - 15 sale price

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains. v) If there was no AOP what was the date of transfer of subject property to M/s. Parkway Developments Pvt. Ltd., ie, whether such transfer was a) AT the time of MOU? b) At the time of principle agreement? c) At the time of settlement deed? 4 d) At the time of execution of conveyance deed? 17. Taking

K.V.D.PRASAD RAO vs. THE JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

capit:rl Section 2(+7) of the Act for the pu4roses of computation o[ 7 gains tax accordingly. On the balance

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry vs. M/s. Kakinada Coop. Town Bank LTd., Kakinada

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management

section 111A on short term capital gains were both denied. 7. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the transactions must

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, vs. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore attract tax on the Capital gains. 7. Opposing the appeals, Shri

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

capital gains). Under section 72, a provision has been made for carry forward and setting off of a loss sustained against the head of profits and gains of business or profession. Under section 72, where a loss which has been sustained under the head of profits and gains of business or profession cannot be set-off against income under

Commissioner of Incoem Tax- 2, vs. M/s. Erythor Pharma Pvt. Ltd.,

In the result, the impugned order dated

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143(1) of the Act. The appellant along with others had owned an inherited property. The appellant and other members of the family had different and specific shares in the said property. All the co-owners have constructed a residential complex on the aforesaid land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and sold the flats

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

Section 54F to ₹30 crores, as against ₹90 crores claimed by the Assessee. 7. The Assessee had deposited the consideration in the capital gains